If mankind were to somehow become immortal would that like cause us to increase our quest for knowledge or would we become lazy and forgo much of our scientific studies since natural death and presumably disease would be things of the past? Initially I would image that war and murder would be huge problems as the reality of infinite lifespans in a world of limited resources was realized. My hope would be that as immortals we would not need natural resources for sustainance. I imagine great scientific minds would focus on answering the biggest questions of such an existence eventually enabling us to leave planet Earth exploring and colonizing the universe. If immortality were to ever become a real possibility chances are it would involve us discovering a way for our consciousness to exist without the natural body. (I guess if that were to be the case we'd no longer be human).

My hope would be that as immortals we would not need natural resources for sustainance.

Possibly. But then again, imagine living on a planet full of immortals where all the resources has been eaten decades ago.....and where you still felt hunger. How long might we take to resort to cannibalism?

And there's another issue....if you just don't die (a la Torchwood: Miracle Day), how horrific might accidents be? Get hit by a train....and still live, unable to die. And if we DID start trying to eat each other because all other food had gone, but we weren't able to die......brrrrrr.

Maybe I've changed my mind about wanting to be immortal........would the cannibals get me before the boredom could?

you've just repeated yourself. For you to say how it makes sense would require you to explain something.

I did explain it. In the very first post I made regarding that issue. Then I quoted myself in response to your question. And now I will do it again.

You are doing exactly what I said - repeating yourself. Supposing I read your first post. And supposing it didn't make sense. I have asked for an explanation. You have not given me one. Instead you have just reposted your statement twice. That does not help me. You are doing the same thing over and over and for some reason expecting different results. Why is that?

It is not necessary that I understand you. But if you are interested in communicating - and I presume you are - then you need to work harder at it. Telling me you have explained and that any misunderstanding or lack of comprehension is my problem does not tell me you care to be understood.

But in an infinite period of time and infinite number of things could happen. So in fact, you could not achieve everything. But that is beside the point.

Actually, that's exactly the point, although your statement is erroneous. Things can only happen within the laws of physics. The laws of physics do not allow for an infinite number of things. The number of things allowed by the laws of physics is extraordinarily high, but that is still smaller than the infinite amount of time you'll have to do all of them.

While that may explain why putting a time limit on life may make it less boring, it does not explain how without it life lacks meaning.

It was always my understanding that one gave their life meaning by setting certain goals (help a lot of people, donate a lot of money, conquer the world, et cetera). If you have achieved everything that can be achieved, you can't set any goals. You've already done everything.

If it were not analogous in a manner that would make my explanation incorrect, you'd be right. However, my explanation was not about whether death is 20% life or whatever.

I knew you weren't saying that. The problem was, I could not tell what you were saying by using that analogy. Which is why it was a poor analogy.

Analogies are tough. None of them are exactly the same thing as what you are trying to relate them to. And whomever you are arguing with is going to push them to the breaking point because it serves their purpose. And then the argument is about the analogy and not the actual point. I advocate using them sparingly or not at all because they seldom make the point you want to make. But that is difficult to do because they seem so convenient.

It was always my understanding that one gave their life meaning by setting certain goals (help a lot of people, donate a lot of money, conquer the world, et cetera). If you have achieved everything that can be achieved, you can't set any goals. You've already done everything.

What about goals that are unattainable or ongoing? For example, can a person achieve perfection?

I get that. But when you are asked to explain, maybe the better, more generous assumption is that it was not ignored.

My experience tells me otherwise. I've often had "misunderstandings" because whomever it was simply did not read my posts. And before you say it's my fault, consider this:If I repeat myself (exact quote, save for bolding the most relevant parts) and the misunderstanding goes away, who was really at fault there?

What about goals that are unattainable or ongoing? For example, can a person achieve perfection?

Your "perfection" example is flawed because "perfection" is relative, but setting impossible goals does not solve the issue. You can't do anything to come closer to achieving said goals when you've already done everything that can be done. Eventually, you will realize that and give up on that goal, which takes us back to the main issue.As for ongoing goals, that will also not solve the problem. As I pointed out to Anfauglir, you need to put things into a much larger perspective. Even with our limited lifespans, we become bored with things. Now imagine if we had an infinite amount of time. We would become bored with everything, eventually, and give up on all ongoing goals.

Why? It was used with my claim that life without death is meaningless.

Why what? Why did I not understand what you were trying to say? I don't know how to answer that, Luc. Because I'm stupid? Because you're stupid? Is "why" even a cogent question to ask about it? What's it matter why?

My experience tells me otherwise. I've often had "misunderstandings" because whomever it was simply did not read my posts.

So have I. I usually refer people to my previous post, ask if they've read it and then let them know if they have further questions I will explain more. I also take into consideration to whom I am speaking. The people who have an established reputation of being smart, thorough people - in other words, people who I respect - get the benefit of the doubt. If you (or a whole bunch of other people here) asked me to explain something I thought I already had, I would, even if I thought I had been crystal clear. I would do it because you have earned my respect and I think it would be respectful to do. Plus, I like to hear myself talk/ read my own blathering.

Why does it matter whether you or I are "at fault"? Why do either of us have to be "at fault"? Let's have a mutually respectful conversation. To me that means generously helping the other participants to understand your point. Not everyone is going to get it the first time, for whatever reason. Hatter and I both missed your point. Be a pal and help us out. Just quoting yourself comes off kind of arrogant and does not show a lot of respect. I think Hatter's earned that much respect. I think I have too.

That's where we differ. I treat every PoV and every claim the same way, regardless of who's speaking. Or at least I try. There will always be some occasions in which I will refrain from doing so for some reason.

If we are remembering the same thing, what I said was the responsibility of communication lies with the person transmitting the message. It is not about fault. It is about responsibility. There are nuances that differentiate those words that someone whose first language is not English may not immediately get.

That may not be how you intended to sound, but that is how it sounded to me. You might ask Hatter his opinion on it. Just because you think you would have treated anyone that way does not mean it was not disrespectful.

That may not be how you intended to sound, but that is how it sounded to me. You might ask Hatter his opinion on it. Just because you think you would have treated anyone that way does not mean it was not disrespectful.

I'm guessing that that's because you think that respect means one should be exempt from the natural reactions of another. I do not. If I respect someone, I may ask them for their opinion on issues in which my opinion has not "settled in", so to speak, or is non-existent, because I acknowledge their superior knowledge regarding that issue. However, if my opinion has already "settled in" and I believe it to be well supported, I will defend it in a manner consistent with every other argument I've had.There are exceptions, obviously. If, for example, I were speaking to someone whose knowledge of black holes made mine seem insignificant, I would ask them why what I had heard and studied was not valid, rather than say they were wrong outright. If their claims were utter nonsense, however (for example, saying that the event horizon is a "barrier" from which anything can escape), I would certainly yell[1] BS and tell them that they were wrong.

But every PoV must be treated in the same manner, if we are to arrive at the most likely conclusion, correct?

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about. We certainly should be skeptical of everyone's ideas and question them. But the manner in which we do it need not be the same. There is a difference between having a discussion about an idea with, say, Anfauglir, versus say, fizixgeek. Anfauglir's ideas/ beliefs are no more off limits or sacrosanct than fizixgeek's. But he has earned my respect as a rational person so that while I endeavor to thoroughly dissect his ideas, I would try to do so in a way that shows that respect. Fiz, on the other hand, has shown himself to be impervious to facts, reason, or changing his mind. He has not earned much of my respect. The two of them are not equal and so do not get equal treatment.

I'm guessing that that's because you think that respect means one should be exempt from the natural reactions of another.

No.

Look, I am not trying to beat you up or have an argument. I am trying to give you some information about yourself so that hopefully you will reflect on it and grow from it. You don't have to believe me. You don't have to agree with me. And I am not going to spend much more time trying to convince you. You have the information. When I said you should ask Hatter his opinion, it was not rhetorical. I think you really should ask Hatter his opinion. And a few other people here you respect too. Then, think about what they had to say. It is not an easy thing to accept criticism of one's self. But it is often the only way to progress.

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about. We certainly should be skeptical of everyone's ideas and question them. But the manner in which we do it need not be the same.<snip>

Once again, that's where we differ. If someone presents an idea I know to be utterly moronic, I will call that idea just that, regardless of who's speaking.[2] If someone has questions about that which I think was made perfectly clear, I will react as if my assumption was correct. You may call that "arrogance" all you want.

However, even if I were to talk to people in a way that "reflects my respect for them", there's a very good reason for the fact that I don't, beyond the fact that I don't think you should treat people's opinions differently just because you respect them: I don't know who you are.

I know maybe one or two people here[3]. The rest are complete strangers, as far as I'm concerned.

It is not an easy thing to accept criticism of one's self. But it is often the only way to progress.

Criticism of one's self is saying, for example[7], that the fact that one thinks of everyone else as inferior is bad. It is not an attempt to change the way one sees oneself to match your PoV.

I know how I am. You may perceive me differently, but that won't change the truth. You seem to think that just because I respect someone I should treat them with "kid gloves" or something like that. I do not. You think that I'm arrogant. I might be more inclined to agree with you on this, although what some of you[8] perceive as me being arrogant is simply me being honest.If I did not change my mind and/or apologize for being wrong, I would feel more inclined to agree with you on the arrogance thing. The truth is that when I make mistakes, I apologize and concede that I was wrong. I learn.

Humility is not assuming that one is wrong. It is acknowledging that one is not always right. There is an enormous difference between the two that most people just don't seem to get. In this specific case, yes, I was wrong in my assumption. I acknowledged that. I apologized.

I like to think of many members here as a part of a community of friends, albeit online. From our interactions through posting and our time on the forum, we most certainly begin to get a feel for personalities and other things that are no different than becoming friends in person.

If you call me a complete stranger, and that's what you truly believe, then you are effectively saying that the relationship is inconsequential to whatever you may have decided about who I am as an online personality. That flies in the face of the type of social connections that human beings are generally predisposed for, IMO.

I think you should consider that the attitude portrayed in your "complete stranger" comment, may be considered by those who know you well, as rude or inconsiderate.

If you call me a complete stranger, and that's what you truly believe, then you are effectively saying that the relationship is inconsequential to whatever you may have decided about who I am as an online personality.

I haven't decided anything about who you are, simply because I don't remember enough of your posts to do it. However, I can safely assume that you're a fair person, as you are a moderator on the forum.

The Answer is God is not healing today. The Answer is Mid Acts Dispensational Right Division.

Cessationism is nothing more than an excuse. It conveniently pushes the alleged miraculous events so far back in time that they cannot be verified, thus relieving the cessationist Christian of having to provide any evidence. But I don't know many cessationists who would say that Mark 11:23-24 is nothing more than a local and temporary principle that does not apply today. And as long as that "promise" is viewed as a universal principle, it obligates God to answer any and every believing prayer completely and exactly as the believe asked for it, even if the answer requires a miracle.

I think the more likely reason that we do not see this happening is because God is imaginary.

Logged

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

That also forces some pretty stiff conclusions about a supposed omnimax god. I have never heard of "Mid Acts Dispensational Right Division", so maybe you could explain that a bit?

I did some research. That division is part of the Department of Redundancy Department, headed up by a Master Theist 1st Class, Level A, Type O positive. There are also "Late Acts" and "Early Acts" divisions. You could have googled it.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

I did. I got a lot of gobbledegook that made no sense to me. I saw a lot of sites talking about a verse from...Timothy? about how to "rightly divide the gospel", but they didn't explain what that actually meant. It was all coded xian language that doesn't mean jack shit to an outsider.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I posted here in February 2012 and of course it was a tough opening night as they say for me!

However after reading the debates here and the thoughts from both the theists and the naturalists, I must admit I have learned much concerning both sides.

I love to learn and enjoy opening my mind to all possibilities and this site has certainly provided a very good education for me.

I also agree with Chapter 32 The future of the Human Race from the Why Wont God Heal Amputees on-line book, as I have often told my family why does humanity allow so much suffering in this world when we can do something about it today?

I have never been a debater per se, and will continue to enjoy being a reader and question asker as needed, as there are enough people on this site to provide the interesting debating material for a long time to come.

My apologies for the initial post (reply #205) as one needs to learn and listen to both sides point of view before you can just come out and say my view is the only way!

I am not asking what is truth, even though I seek it, I will know when truth is in front of me, when it is internally consistent, coherent with knowledge, congruent with like experience, useful for helping me organize my thinking, this is all I can ask in seeking the truth.

If you enjoy reading and learning, in the general forum, there is a stickied thread called "kcrady - old school" full of a bunch of posts and discussions by the member kcrady. I learned a lot and was thoroughly entertained by it.

I've heard this response before. Is there any support for it in the bible? (I'm not being snarky, here, I'm actually asking.)

Quote

The Answer is Mid Acts Dispensational Right Division.

I'm not aware of anything in this doctrine that supports Cessationism. Can you advise?

From my Campbellite past, the idea of the cessation of spiritual gifts, healings, and miracles in general is the norm. If I recall correctly, in 1 Corinthians 13, there is a passage of scripture that talks about tongues, prophesy, etc. being done away with when that which is perfect or complete comes. According to my Campbellite brethren, the "perfect" that came was the completed NT writings. Because of this, it is believed that miraculous gifts have been done away with since the late 1st century.

...the why God doesn't heal them is that they are being punished for their deeds in their past life. It could be that.

So you're saying I was both Kahn and Hitler in past lives? Why else would I be 'punished' so much in my life? Bullshit. Here's sound logical reasoning:1. I am a good person, realistically. yes, I have my 'flaws', so to speak..2. If I am a good person, and God is Great, then He would be a better person than I..3. Holding that #2 is true, and God isn't actually evil in any way, there would be absolutely no reason for any kind of punishment. He could just tell you the story, correct you, and perfect you. Can't he do anything he wants? Isn't that the very definition of God?4. Since God isn't like #3 in the Christian religionany religion out there then he must not exist at all...5. If God is a deity, and Satan is his opponent, why would he condemnbe satan's greatest gift and send you all to hell???

Logged

"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger.""If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me. Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

God is healing people all the time. I have seen it. The question is if you did see a healing would you believe? Most people would not. In your intellect you want to see God not in searching for him to be lord and savior. Even if God did heal someone all you would mock it and pull it apart and justify in your mind that it did not happen. Here is a revelation that happen when Jesus healed people over 2000 year ago.

I challenge you to ask god to prove to that he is real. bash me all you want but you want proof ask god. Hold on it will be a bumpy road, you may have to give up porn, selffishness, apathy and other things. If you do not want to seek Him honestly he may treat you just like the Pharoh.